Keep in mind these "classic cubic" films are not as classic as they once were. These films have been modernized over the years and are more like hybrid traditional-tabular films. Plus-X, Tri-X, FP4+, HP5+, Pan F+ all fall into this category. Tri-X users who think they are using the classic 1960s Tri-X are fooling themselves.

Micheal this might very well be but the manufacturing process for hybrid films can still be more expensive than the one for t-grain only films. And I am in full agreement you observation that Tri-X users are sometimes fooling themselves and that the emulsion has changed a lot.

Micheal this might very well be but the manufacturing process for hybrid films can still be more expensive than the one for t-grain only films. And I am in full agreement you observation that Tri-X users are sometimes fooling themselves and that the emulsion has changed a lot.

Dominik

Agreed. I have no idea what the costs are. Not sure, for example, if Plus-X is still more "silver rich" than TMX.

I don't know why you think it's self-inflicted. They can't force people to buy the film.

That's not the "self-inflicted" part...

Ken

"When making a portrait, my approach is quite the same as when I am portraying a rock. I do not wish to impose my personality upon the sitter, but, keeping myself open to receive reactions from his own special ego, record this with nothing added: except of course when I am working professionally, when money enters in,—then for a price, I become a liar..."

No but Ilford is doing ok. Kodak could have done a lot more to promote film and slow the demise, at least. Whether they could do more to right-size and stay profitably in film is another question.

But as someone said, FP4+ is at least as good if not better in most ways, and fortunately is still readily available and looks to be going forward. I shoot FP4+ (and Tri-X and Delta 3200) in 120. This probably would have been Plus-X except that by the time I bought a medium format camera Kodak had stopped making it in 120.

The single biggest reason for the demise of film was the cheap crap called cameras delivered to the low end market. The fact is even the simplest digital camera made sure the image was in focus. The reality is the 'Joe schmo' wound up taking better pictures with the digital in hand than what he/she had for film. And yes, Kodak was the biggest seller of cheap crap they called cameras. It was how they stayed in business for so long and why they are in this position now.

You just have to go through someones box of pictures to see this in action. Apple will put that final nail in the coffin.......

I will just keep buying up as much of the good stuff while I can. There will always be film, but perhaps not the ones I prefer......